Mohammed Azizuddin v. Bangalore
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.LAYEEQ KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT .E.S.V.B.MADHAVI T he Court made t he following :
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition has been filed by Mohammed Azizuddin assailing the possession notice dated 22.9.2007 issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner is the owner of Flat No.509, Falcon Enclave in premises bearing MCH.No.10-4-39, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. He claims to have the said flat under agreement cum GPA on
5.1.2007. According to him, the original owner of the premises put him in possession after receiving an amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs out of the total sale consideration of Rs.8.50 lakhs. His vendors informed him of their availing a loan of Rs.3.00 lakhs by creating equitable mortgage of original title deeds. It is the version of the petitioner that that he was under the impression that his vendors would clear the entire loan amount and hand over the original title deeds. While so, the respondents issued possession notice dated
Operative part
20.9.2007 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The said possession notice is challenged in this writ petition. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner paid Rs.8.00 lakhs out of the total sale consideration of Rs.8.50 lakhs to the original owner and that the original owner having undertaken to handover the title deeds failed to perform his part of the contract and thereupon he filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. A fact remains that the flat in question is mortgaged with 1st respondent and 1st respondent proceeded to invoke the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is evident from the possession notice that it is preceded by a notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the possession notice he has to work out his remedy by filing an appeal as provided under section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal as provided under section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. There shall be status quo existing as on today for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioner to avail the remedy under section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. No costs. 25th August, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) Cc in two days. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.22698 OF 2007 25T H AUGUST, 2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.